Something that I think deserves it's own thread.

[YoursTruly]

What a load.

Yup, he is.

 

[elektra]

Diesel is still under $5 in my area.

Plus a dollar in DEF, bringing it up to just under $6

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Plus a dollar in DEF, bringing it up to just under $6

I fill DEF about every 5-6 tanks. Plus, I stocked up on gallons of the stuff I got much cheaper last year.

 

[bripat9643]

I fill DEF about every 5-6 tanks. Plus, I stocked up on gallons of the stuff I got much cheaper last year.

What's DEF?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

What's DEF?

Diesel exhaust fluid - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[elektra]

I fill DEF about every 5-6 tanks. Plus, I stocked up on gallons of the stuff I got much cheaper last year.

I don't know much about it other than it don't seem cheap

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don't know much about it other than it don't seem cheap

Yeah, you don't. You also don't seem to drive a diesel truck. Why are you a part of this conversation again?

 

[elektra]

. Why are you a part of this conversation again?

To tell idiots like you that all new diesel vehicles require DEF

Nobody has mentioned DEF, it adds to the costs. It is used to reduce emissions.

Why is your part of the conversation always the stupid part?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

To tell idiots like you that all new diesel vehicles require DEF

Nobody has mentioned DEF, it adds to the costs. It is used to reduce emissions

Post #283. Are you fucking retarded?

 

[elektra]

Post #283. Are you fucking retarded?

It appears you are a moron. People who think it is okay to disparage people who have down syndrome I find to be of low intelligence. It is not okay to call people retards.

I make the comment, that out of 282 posts nobody adds the cost of DEF to the cost of diesel yet you reply as if that is part of this thread?

Dumblin Dumbweed, nobody does include you. You only responded to me, at the very end of almost 300 comments.

You are pretty fucking stupid

 

[Richard-H]

The demographics of the nation are not typical from country to city. The voice you would deny to country folks would make life in those areas untenable. City rules do not work for the majority of this country. That is why the EC and the filibuster are important. Interesting that the democrats have used and supported the filibuster more than any other party.

Ending the filibuster and fixing the EC would correct the disproportionate power of the low population states. It would not deny them a voice. Nor would it force untenable policies on rural areas.

As it is the low population states ARE forcing untenable policies on the high population areas.

Both parties have used the filibuster to not only block the opposing party's legislation, but to insure that the legislation which they claim to support is never enacted. It's a SCAM!

 

[dblack]

Ending the filibuster and fixing the EC would correct the disproportionate power of the low population states.

That EC doesn't need to be corrected. It IS correct. It was intentional.

If anything, we need to strengthen the consensus building requirement embodied in the filibuster with a real, constitutional requirement for both houses to pass a bill with a two-thirds majority before it becomes law. Federal laws should require more than a slim, partisan majority in Congress.

 

[Richard-H]

That EC doesn't need to be corrected. It IS correct. It was intentional.

If anything, we need to strengthen the consensus building requirement embodied in the filibuster with a real, constitutional requirement for both houses to pass a bill with a two-thirds majority before it becomes law. Federal laws should require more than a slim, partisan majority in Congress.

The Constitution conceives both Houses to be democratic institutions, not consensus based.

Under your plan, they'd be no laws and no budgets passed since 1784. The U.S. would be a total shithole. Nothing would get done by Congress.

Of course they'd still make their speeches and nonsense promises, and accept all they can get from lobbyists.

It's Congress's job to govern...and that means passing laws and budgets.

Ending the filibuster just means that Congress will have no excuse to not do the jobs they get elected to do.

 

[miketx]

Ah, the general canned response. When the left spends money they are spending money. When the right spends money it is actually the left spending money. The right has never spent money, ever.

Lol, didn't even come close to answering the question. No surprise.

 

[miketx]

And his second?

And his third?

How many times does he have to sign massive expansive budgets before you give him any accountability for his actions?

He outspent every president before him, like they all do. No different than the left.

The right no longer has any ground to stand on in overspending because no one actually takes them seriously. When given the power, they increase spending every single time.

Proof? No? Lol.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution conceives both Houses to be democratic institutions, not consensus based.

Under your plan, they'd be no laws and no budgets passed since 1784. The U.S. would be a total shithole. Nothing would get done by Congress.

That's a bullshit claim. It's based on the status quo of two parties fighting for a fifty-one percent majority. If they had to get two-thirds, they would approach things differently. That's the point.

Ending the filibuster just means that Congress will have no excuse to not do the jobs they get elected to do.

It would mean the would have no need to seek consensus. The majority would force it's will on the minority, until the tables turned and it was all pushed back in the other direction. Pointless thrashing. We need laws that everyone can live with, not agenda items for the culture warriors.

 

[Concerned American]

Ending the filibuster just means that Congress will have no excuse to not do the jobs they get elected to do.

Keeping the filibuster prevents one-party rule. Forcing our government to compromise. Democrats want one-party rule where five or six cities in the country dictate to the rest.

 

[Richard-H]

That's a bullshit claim. It's based on the status quo of two parties fighting for a fifty-one percent majority. If they had to get two-thirds, they would approach things differently. That's the point.

It would mean the would have no need to seek consensus. The majority would force it's will on the minority, until the tables turned and it was all pushed back in the other direction. Pointless thrashing. We need laws that everyone can live with, not agenda items for the culture warriors.

We need a Government that works. Your notion that the Government must be run by consensus is total BULLSHIT!

THERE WILL NEVER BE CONSENSUS.

The entire basis of Democracy is that there will always be contention. That's the whole point of democracy. Democracy has never been and should never be the LOVE FEST that you think it should be. Congress will never hold hands and sing KUMBAYA.

The entire reason we have a Congress is for contending parties to negotiate and compromise peacefully. No one ever gets 100% of what they want, and no one gets 0%. No one is ever totally happy.

We have a dysfunctional government because of the filibuster. It's not how Democracy works.

 

[Richard-H]

Keeping the filibuster prevents one-party rule. Forcing our government to compromise. Democrats want one-party rule where five or six cities in the country dictate to the rest.

Democrats want a functioning Democracy. Rule by the majority, not by the minority.

If 90% of the people live in urban areas, and 10% in rural areas, the 90% should not be subject to the rule of the 10%.

Besides cities don't rule, people do.

 

[Concerned American]

No one ever gets 100% of what they want

Tell that to the democrats. They seem to think it is their way or the highway----or jail if you disagree.